The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit brought into sharp focus the increasing diplomatic isolation of India within the region. For a country that claims to be a rising global power, India’s walkout from the SCO summit—triggered by its refusal to sign a joint declaration—was more than just a moment of discord; it was a moment of reckoning. India stood alone as the only member state to reject the consensus, primarily because the final communiqué did not include a reference to the Pahalgam terror incident that occurred on its soil. Instead, the statement mentioned the hijacking of the Jaffar Express in Pakistan, signaling a more balanced and multilateral approach to regional security—something India could not digest.
This move not only isolated India diplomatically but also exposed the deeper contradictions in India’s position within the SCO. India’s discomfort stems not just from the wording of the declaration but from a more fundamental reality: it is a misfit in an organization driven by cooperation, mutual respect, and regional trust. India’s hegemonic tendencies, extremist policies, and alignment with Western strategic interests have made it increasingly incompatible with the spirit and goals of the SCO.
The Indian Stance on Terrorism: Selective and Self-Serving
India has long used the issue of terrorism as a foreign policy tool, selectively framing incidents to paint a one-sided narrative. At the SCO summit, New Delhi insisted on including the Pahalgam incident in the declaration while objecting to the mention of the Jaffar Express hijacking in Pakistan. This selective outrage revealed a clear double standard and was seen by many SCO members as an attempt to hijack the agenda for political posturing.
Moreover, India’s Defense Minister, Rajnath Singh, used his speech at the summit to indirectly accuse unnamed countries—widely interpreted as Pakistan and China—of sponsoring terrorism. Such aggressive rhetoric, far from building regional consensus, undermines the spirit of cooperation the SCO stands for. Other member states, including China, Russia, Iran, and Central Asian republics, chose not to endorse India’s confrontational tone, further exposing its isolation.
India’s unwillingness to engage constructively on equal terms with its neighbors is not new. Whether in South Asia or Central Asia, India’s narrative often lacks balance, and its demands are unilateral. The fact that none of the major SCO countries supported India’s line at the summit speaks volumes about how far India is from gaining regional trust.
India’s Hostile Regional Posture: No Friends in the Neighborhood
India has strained or adversarial relations with almost all its immediate neighbors—Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and even Maldives. This pattern reflects a broader problem with India’s foreign policy: an inability to cooperate in its own neighborhood while seeking validation from distant powers such as the United States, the UK, Australia, and Japan.
This misalignment is especially problematic in multilateral platforms like the SCO, which emphasizes regional integration, non-interference, and mutual respect. India’s growing military and intelligence cooperation with the United States—particularly under QUAD and other Indo-Pacific frameworks—directly conflicts with the SCO’s strategic culture. It is no secret that India has served as a conduit for Western interests in the region, especially in matters related to China, Iran, and Russia.
India’s intelligence agencies have also been implicated in cross-border operations, espionage, and sabotage. From targeted killings in Canada and the United States to covert activities in Pakistan and the Middle East, India has increasingly come under scrutiny for exporting instability rather than peace. These actions are incompatible with the SCO’s vision of a cooperative Eurasian future.
An Extremist and Intolerant State: The Rise of Fascism in India
Domestically, India presents itself as the world’s largest democracy. Yet its internal politics tell a different story. The current regime under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has systematically dismantled the country’s secular and pluralistic foundations. Minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, face widespread discrimination, mob lynchings, and legal persecution. Anti-conversion laws, the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, and the enactment of the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) are only a few examples of how India has institutionalized intolerance.
This shift toward Hindu majoritarianism, coupled with censorship, suppression of dissent, and judicial manipulation, has led many international observers to label India as an “electoral autocracy.” The SCO, an organization that includes Muslim-majority states like Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, must question the place of a state whose internal and external policies are rooted in extremism and exclusion.
A History of Destabilization: From the Iran-Iraq War to Modern Times
India’s negative regional role is not a recent phenomenon. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, India maintained opportunistic ties and hedged its bets, playing both sides. In more recent times, India has tried to exploit divisions between Iran and the Arab world while presenting itself as a neutral player. However, leaked intelligence reports and diplomatic cables have shown that Indian agencies have often been involved in undermining regional stability through covert operations.
India’s actions in Afghanistan, its persistent interference in Balochistan, and its use of proxy groups to destabilize neighboring countries further underscore its long-standing strategy of regional domination through disruption. These are not the traits of a responsible stakeholder but of a disruptive actor.
SCO Summit 2025: A Diplomatic Humiliation for India
At the 2025 SCO summit, the fault lines were clearer than ever. India arrived with a pre-drafted narrative, expecting the region to rally behind it. Instead, it was met with collective indifference. The final declaration was a clear rejection of India’s confrontational approach, focusing instead on constructive engagement, joint security cooperation, and equitable economic development.
India’s decision to walk out of the declaration process wasn’t a show of strength; it was a tacit admission of its diplomatic failure. For a country that claims to be a responsible global power, this episode was a clear embarrassment—an act of desperation masked as principled protest.
A Case for Expulsion: Why India No Longer Belongs in the SCO
India’s actions are increasingly at odds with the SCO’s founding principles—mutual respect, non-aggression, and regional cooperation. It has failed to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors, promotes a narrow and hostile narrative, and aligns itself more closely with Western powers who seek to counterbalance SCO nations like China, Russia, and Iran.
India’s role in the SCO appears more like that of an observer serving foreign interests rather than a genuine partner in Eurasian cooperation. Its strategic alignment with Washington, Tokyo, and Canberra raises questions about its commitment to a multipolar world, which the SCO envisions.
The time has come to ask whether India should remain in the SCO. An organization that seeks peace and regional stability cannot afford to include a member that sows discord, resists consensus, and pursues external agendas. Expelling India—or at the very least suspending its participation—would send a clear message that the SCO remains united in its core objectives and will not be held hostage by the ambitions of a misfit.
A Fork in the Road for SCO and India
India’s conduct at the SCO summit has confirmed what many in the region already suspect: that it is an unreliable partner with an inflated sense of self-importance. It is a country whose regional actions contradict its global rhetoric. It seeks to lead without listening and demands respect without reciprocation.
The SCO must now prioritize cohesion, unity, and trust among its members. India, with its extremist policies, hegemonic ambitions, and alignment with extra-regional powers, simply does not belong. The organization must take a firm stand—not only for the sake of principle but for the integrity of the regional order it seeks to uphold.
India’s isolation at the SCO is not an anomaly. It is the natural outcome of years of arrogance, aggression, and alienation. And unless it fundamentally changes course, India will find itself increasingly alone—not just in the SCO, but in a region that seeks peace, not provocation
